Ok, so, I've been gone for a couple of years. I'm back and.... well, I like some of what I see, I don't like some of what I see.
I like the rebranding (I had to upgrade to a Dash wallet.... I was on Darkcoin when I left.... a couple hundred DRK in it). I've been following the price of DRK/DASH on Coinmarketcap, and this time with the pump to over .02, I decided to cash out, since there seems to be a regular "wash, rinse and repeat" cycle going on, and I've regretted not jumping in on past >.02 situations and getting my initial BTC investment back. As of now, I have divested myself of all but a handful of Dash, and I hope to buy back in at around .012.
I like the major GUI upgrades. It looks much prettier now. I like Masternodes. I like the idea of self-governance and having a budget. I like the way the development is happening in general. I don't think that 10% of Masternodes is nearly enough to commit funds --unless all "members of the board" / "employees" / devs / power-brokers recuse themselves from voting in every case where there is any possible conflict of interest. Otherwise the "vote" is a complete sham. Why even pretend to be democratic when only 10% of an already-elite group can make all the decisions? You might as well just be Bitcoin. If a higher percentage (at least 50% of masternodes) isn't required, then, Evan, et al (not sure who the other higher-ups all are -- but certainly anyone who is paid any kind of a salary out of the proceeds of the "development fund") need to publish their Masternodes and not vote -- let "outsiders" vote according to the merits of the proposals.
I see this as being like the ideological battle between communism and capitalism. Bitcoin is, in a way, communist; 100% of the rewards go to the laborers (miners) (never mind that owning a decent mining setup nowadays requires a ton of real-world capital). I like the fact that Dark/Dash has come up with a way for people to also earn rewards for simply owning enough capital. I also like that the incentives are aligned; Masternode owners have to lock up their funds, so they can't trade in and out -- they've got to be long-term hodlers, and as more Masternodes are brought online, more Dash are locked up and out of the reach of the traders, thereby lowering supply and hopefully driving the price upward -- which rewards Masternode owners, miners, and small-time hodlers alike. It's win-win-win.
But it's not win-win-win when somebody can propose something that exclusively enriches a certain few people, and those certain few people have enough power to make that proposal effective. This is an effective kleptocracy, and I don't think that anybody really wants to be associated with that. Yes, we all want to make money, but a system that basically ensures that the rich get richer is pretty sleazy IMO. The Masternodes already do enough in that regard. And Masternode owners are supposedly in this for the long-haul. At current prices, a Masternode is over $20,000 -- that's a pretty hefty amount. Masternode owners are keeping that money invested in order to earn a return -- paid in Dash. Those Dash will be worthless if people decide to abandon the currency due to concerns about propriety among the whales / owners / developers (because they are largely the same people). Think long-term. The best possible proposals, for the long-term success of Dash, would be:
A) Change the voting requirement to 50% of MN owners;
B) Change the voting requirement to include some percentage of miners;
C) Dedicate some portion of the "10% funds" to trading accounts on major exchanges which is run exclusively to manipulate the price of Dash upwards.
That's my piece. I may follow this thread a bit more, but I don't have the kind of time that I used to have for this kind of stuff anymore. I do appreciate the further development of Dash, but I fear this self-serving "governance" is leading us all down a blind alley.